Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35083528›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2022

Deep learning in CT colonography: differentiating premalignant from benign colorectal polyps.

Philipp Wesp, Sergio Grosu, Anno Graser, Stefan Maurus, Christian Schulz, Thomas Knösel, Matthias P Fabritius, Balthasar Schachtner, Benjamin M Yeh, Clemens C Cyran and 3 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. On the Analyses of Medical Images Using Traditional Machine Learning Techniques and Convolutional Neural Networks.Archives of computational methods in engineering : state of the art reviews · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Philipp Wesp *Department of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany. philipp.wesp@med.uni-muenchen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7356-3371
Sergio Grosu *Department of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Anno GraserRadiologie München, Burgstraße 7, 80331, Munich, Germany.
Stefan MaurusDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Christian SchulzDepartment of Medicine II, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Thomas KnöselDepartment of Pathology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Matthias P FabritiusDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Balthasar SchachtnerDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Benjamin M YehDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, 513 Parnassus Ave, San Francisco, CA, 94117, USA.
Clemens C CyranDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Jens RickeDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Philipp M KazmierczakDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Michael IngrischDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
LMU Klinikum · DEUniversity of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo investigate the differentiation of premalignant from benign colorectal polyps detected by CT colonography using deep learning.

methodsIn this retrospective analysis of an average risk colorectal cancer screening sample, polyps of all size categories and morphologies were manually segmented on supine and prone CT colonography images and classified as premalignant (adenoma) or benign (hyperplastic polyp or regular mucosa) according to histopathology. Two deep learning models SEG and noSEG were trained on 3D CT colonography image subvolumes to predict polyp class, and model SEG was additionally trained with polyp segmentation masks. Diagnostic performance was validated in an independent external multicentre test sample. Predictions were analysed with the visualisation technique Grad-CAM++.

resultsThe training set consisted of 107 colorectal polyps in 63 patients (mean age: 63 ± 8 years, 40 men) comprising 169 polyp segmentations. The external test set included 77 polyps in 59 patients comprising 118 polyp segmentations. Model SEG achieved a ROC-AUC of 0.83 and 80% sensitivity at 69% specificity for differentiating premalignant from benign polyps. Model noSEG yielded a ROC-AUC of 0.75, 80% sensitivity at 44% specificity, and an average Grad-CAM++ heatmap score of ≥ 0.25 in 90% of polyp tissue.

conclusionsIn this proof-of-concept study, deep learning enabled the differentiation of premalignant from benign colorectal polyps detected with CT colonography and the visualisation of image regions important for predictions. The approach did not require polyp segmentation and thus has the potential to facilitate the identification of high-risk polyps as an automated second reader. KEY POINTS: • Non-invasive deep learning image analysis may differentiate premalignant from benign colorectal polyps found in CT colonography scans. • Deep learning autonomously learned to focus on polyp tissue for predictions without the need for prior polyp segmentation by experts. • Deep learning potentially improves the diagnostic accuracy of CT colonography in colorectal cancer screening by allowing for a more precise selection of patients who would benefit from endoscopic polypectomy, especially for patients with polyps of 6-9 mm size.

Indexed as

Colonic PolypsColonography, Computed TomographicColorectal NeoplasmsDeep LearningPrecancerous ConditionsAgedColonoscopyHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityColonic polypColonographyComputed tomographicDeep learningEarly detection of cancer

Identifiers

PMID35083528
PMCPMC9213389
OpenAlexW4210496928

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.